3
Rhetorical Topography Berube (2007) calls for “a roadmap to help in composing a risk dialogue with laypersons on nanotechnology.” Rather than discuss specific formulations of this dialogue…under what conditions could meaningful discursive engagements could occur? 3Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography

13
Ramifications 1.Need to enrich vocabularies and methods of deliberative engagement – Providing accurate information may not be enough without expanding resources for deliberation Example: “Agonistic heuristic” reframes non- or pre- consensual scientific findings as winner-take-all fight within a fragmented scientific community (e.g., media coverage of US presidential election) – How to communicate warrants for claims that enable evaluations of argument quality? 13Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography

14
Ramifications (contd.) 2.Address ways to correct for power asymmetries and discursive misalignments – Beware banking models of deliberation & public engagement (Friere) – Examine vestiges of scientism, embrace mutual discursive obligations (esp. listening) – What does the construction of a message say about the nature of the relationship between source and receiver? Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography14

17
A Few Symptoms to Address: Chronicle of a Conversation with a Nano Center Director When we communicate with the public, we must “dumb down” our research. Cut directly to the benefits: “We will get your cell phone to hold its charge longer.” (or “Read my lips: no new risks”?) The encounter between nanocenter advocates and the community is “at a stalemate.” “I’m an engineering geek. I don’t do public policy.” Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography17